So, the NFL had to provide the Saints players' bounty evidence to the NFLPA today prior to the appeal hearings of the four current and former Saints. According to sources, it is less than convincing:
http://mobile.nola.com/advnola/pm_29...cyKhFv&rwthr=0
Quote:
The NFL, in a three-year, on-again/off-again investigation, said it had compiled some 5,000 documents totaling more than 18,000 pages, and that its account was corroborated by, "multiple, independent sources."
What the league turned over Friday, however, amounted to less than 200 pages... It also does not appear to include any documents showing a 'bounty ledger,' the existence of which had been reported by Yahoo! Sports, nothing backing up the league's contention former Saints defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove lied to league investigators, and none of the complete set of 2010 defensive meeting videotapes the NFLPA asked for in a Friday letter to Goodell.
Curiously, the packet did contain two items that could not possibly have been used as evidence by Goodell when he imposed the unprecedented discipline because at the time Goodell did so the documents did not exist. Those are a May 31 on-line screed published by documentary filmmaker Sean Pamphilon and a column by The Times-Picayune's Mike Triplett based on an interview with Saints linebacker Scott Fujita. That article was published on June 6.
|
I'm curious to see how the suspensions are handled if there is no actual evidence of intent to injure provided by the NFL.